Appeasement Essay

4292 words - 18 pages

Did the policy of appeasement go to any great lengths toward stopping the outbreak of war or did it simply delay the inevitable?

The task of explaining why appeasement, has been continuously addressed by historians over the years. To date, there is still no single cause identified. Nonetheless there is however a general consensus amongst historians that the frightful events of world war one, distilled a sense of fear and regret amongst British society, and consequently Britain strived to prevent any future war, through whatever means necessary. In the aftermath of World War 1, lay a mutual understanding between the British government and society that never again should a catastrophe such ...view middle of the document...

Hence the reduction of arms and peace became vote winners in elections. Appeasement can be defined as " a disposition to avoid conflict by judicious concession and negotiation". Neville Chamberlain noted that the British public would not wish nor accept another war. Therefore the British government sought to follow a policy of appeasement. However, everyone did not share the acceptance of the policy of appeasement. Looking on with hindsight many historians have condemned the actions of Chamberlain and his government. Especially the Liberal party of the time who were the most consistant critics of the policy. As it became evident that the policy of appeasement had failed in 1939 and that Britain would in fact go to war, the Liberal Leader Sir Archibald Sinclair expressed his feelings on the achievements of appeasement " We have eaten dirt in vain" This statement is clearly expressing the fact that Britain has tolerated the deceitful acts of Germany to no avail or successes. That the policy of appeasement was deemed to fail from the onset. Concluding that the policy was pointless as it only prolonged the inevitable. In order to make an informed conclusion to whether or not appeasement was the correct policy to pursue, it is essential to look at the events and debates leading up to the out-break of world war 2. The system of collective security, which was in part demanded by the British Public, came in the form of The League Of Nations. This was to be a system in which international disputes between nations would be settled by negotiation. The responsibility of the League was to act as an arbitrator in disputes between nations and to provide effective collective security against any form of military aggression. There were mixed opinions towards the League. Alan Sharp had referred to the League of Nations as a "compromise agreement, which pleased none of the parties involved." It was also referred to by Marshall Foch, the military commander-in-chief of the allied armies at the end of the war as, "this is not peace. It is an armistice for twenty years". These statements clearly show the harsh realities of the League. It was indeed a harsh peace, which did not completely satisfy the needs of all countries involved. Many feel it was essentially an opportunity for France to impose harsh repercussions on Germany for the destruction of her country. The main provisions of the League were The German army was to be limited to 100,000 and conscription banned. The navy was also to be reduced to a coastal force and the building of submarines and battleships were forbidden so too, was a German air force. She was also to lose European territory including Alsace-Lorraine, Eupen, Malmedy, North Schleswig, West Prussia, Poznania, and parts of Upper Silesia and Memel, and all her non-European colonies were to be placed under the control of the League of Nations. The Saar coalmining region was to be placed under the leagues control until 1935 and all foreign currency...

Other Papers Like Appeasement

528 words - 3 pages
." Now let's set the record straight. There's no argument over the choice between peace and war, but there's only one guaranteed way you can have peaceâ€”and you can have it in the next secondâ€”surrender.
Admittedly, there's a risk in any course we follow other than this, but every lesson of history tells us that the greater risk lies in appeasement, and this is the specter our well-meaning liberal friends refuse to faceâ€”that their policy

1603 words - 7 pages
most likely have not have reached those extreme points. The League of Nations had failed due to the collapse of Collective Security. Britain and France were very ineffective in upholding the harsh terms of the Treaty of Versailles and so Appeasement or the idea of relieving Hitler by giving in to his demands was beginning to become the strategy to prevent war and was also a major mistake to begin with.
The first mistake was not recognising

1572 words - 7 pages
, mainly Britain and France which were the founder members was then already messed up, afraid of taking any other wrong decisions again. So they preferred to ignore Hitlerâ€™s plans and actions.
Many saw Hitler as a defense to the threat of spreading Communism which was one of their main worries so by this Britain and France thought appeasement was a great option because the leaders were short of alternatives. The British werenâ€™t very

560 words - 3 pages
the novel the red-haired Billy is associated with red foxes and coyotes. At about the time Loyal decides to give up trapping, he finds a young female red coyote in one of his traps. As she looks at him with â€œher body language, mingling appeasement, fear, anger, threat, resignation, pain, horror, and more, the terrible and thrilling sense of her lifeâ€™s imminent endâ€, Loyal is reminded of Billy. Aware that the coyote, unlike Billy, is not

611 words - 3 pages
world. If the gods were not respected, there would be a human price to pay. Therefore, a human’s mortality belonged to the gods and it could be demanded as payment for appeasement. The ancient Mesopotamia people believed that the gods had ultimate control and authority over them.
Religion served as an explanation for things that were not fully understood. Enkidu believed that his fate had been decided. “My friend, the great goddess cursed

620 words - 3 pages
relationship formed by the McMahon letter and the Sykes-Picot agreement both supported the thesis for an Arab state in Palestine and through this the mandates had worn the cloak of appeasement which in turn subdued the Arab states through satisfaction in their aims. The inconsistency flowed through into the early 20’s where a series of revolts took place: the Iraqi revolt of 1920 culminated as a result of resentment to British rule.

655 words - 3 pages
older version was mention to have given the Spanish just "necklaces of gold and fine stone". Which seems nice enough, but the new version reveals even more. In addition to the necklaces and stones, "yellow tobacco flowers, cacao flowers, wreaths for the head, and wreaths...” were as well sent as gifts. This adds a whole new level of what type of appeasement Montezuma was trying to do. This this amount of new gifts, we can tell that Montezuma was

2205 words - 9 pages
then. Their anger made Hitler's goal of reversing the Treaty appealing as it was what many German's wanted to restore their country's strength and national pride. The harshness of the Treaty later led to other countries feeling guilty so they were more easy-going with appeasement.
The Allies demanded a democratic government be set up in Germany; by forcing it to sign the Treaty. It made people hate the democracy which had been force-fed to them

2140 words - 9 pages
win back territories in northern China now controlled by the Liao dynasty, founded by the once-nomadic Khitan. Taizhong’s failed campaign against the Khitan generated disastrous results, since the Khitan attacked in reprisal, coming within a few days march of the Song capital.
After this demonstration of the limitations of their own military strength, the Song court came to rely a policy of appeasement, inaugurating a tribute system in which

1016 words - 5 pages
developed. . . . eloquent rationales for inaction and appeasement, even treason, to avoid the contest for power that was so obviously rising in Europe. They rejected the wisdom that good and evil are perpetually in conflict, and that it is only for good men to do nothing for evil men to triumph. . . . Remarkably, some of the leading nations in the world still don’t appear to ‘get it’ when Saddam Hussein reappears. At root, it seems to be a matter

Related Essays

2211 words - 9 pages
To what extent was British public opinion the reason that Britain adopted the policy of appeasement?
After a defeat in WW1 Germany was left seriously impacted (want this to be changed?ritain adopted the policy of appeasement? reason thAT torians have argued that milirary am by-election showed the true anti-war). This gave Chancellor Adolf Hitler the perfect opportunity to expand Germany’s territories and get rid of the restrictions placed on

780 words - 4 pages
Why did Britain and France adopt the appeasement policy betwen 1933 t0 1939?
To appease means to avoid displeasing or annoying some one by giving or doing what that person wants. It could be to give or to do what a given country wants in order to avoid war.
Between 1933 and 1938 Britain and France adopted a cautious policy towards Germany. They showed their reluctance to take decisive action to prevent or halt German aggressive and

1171 words - 5 pages
The Policy of Appeasement as the Most Important Reason for the Outbreak of the Second World War
The outbreak of the Second World War had many causes, one of which was
the policy of appeasement which was one of the most important causes.
The policy of appeasement, between 1936 – 1939 was the policy of
giving in to Hitler’s demands to prevent another conflict. This was a
one of the major causes of the Second World War as

1307 words - 6 pages
master scheme all along and that he had planned the Holocaust.
The functionalist view may argue that Great Britain and France were more to blame as they did not stop Germany, eventually they turned a blind eye. Chamberlain proposed the policy of appeasement which made concessions to the dictatorial powers of Hitler, he had done this because the British armed forces were not ready for a world war with Germany in 1938. However appeasement was wrong